Tag Archives: ciaa

The Largest IPO in African History Is Happening. Where Are African America’s Institutions?

Our work is the presentatoin of our capabilities. – Edward Gibbon

There is an old story about a village that lived along a great river. Every season, merchants from distant lands traveled that river, loading their boats with timber, ore, and grain pulled from the very land the villagers had worked for generations. Those merchants sailed downstream to markets where fortunes were made and power was consolidated, and season by season, neighboring tribes who had learned to build boats and send their own goods to market grew stronger their granaries fuller, their children better protected, their voices louder in the councils where decisions were made about who owned what and who owed whom. The village elders watched all of this from the bank. They were not ignorant men and women. They knew the river better than any merchant who passed through. They understood its currents, its seasons, its dangers. But they had never built boats. The lumber was expensive. The tools were hard to come by. The timing was never quite right. And so the resources of their land flowed downstream in other people’s vessels, enriching other people’s villages, while their own families and sibling villages just around the bend, bound to them by blood and history grew more exposed with each passing year. Then one season, a young man and a young woman stood before the elders and said: we know how to build the boats. We know where the timber is. We know the market downstream. The only question is whether this village will finally decide that the river belongs to us too.

The most consequential capital markets event in African history is unfolding in real time, and there is no reason for HBCU endowments and alumni associations to be spectators.

Aliko Dangote, the Nigerian industrialist whose Dangote Petroleum Refinery and Petrochemicals FZE has already reshaped the energy economics of West Africa, is preparing to take the refinery public. The offering structured as a coordinated multi-exchange IPO spanning the Nigerian Exchange, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, the Nairobi Securities Exchange, the Ghana Stock Exchange, and several additional African bourses carries a valuation range of $40 billion to $50 billion. At a 10% stake offering, the actual transaction size approaches $5 billion, making it by a wide margin the largest equity offering ever conducted on an African stock exchange. The IPO subscription window is expected to open later in 2026.

For HBCU endowment officers, foundation boards, and alumni association investment committees who have spent the last decade searching for alternative assets that offer both competitive returns and meaningful institutional alignment, this transaction deserves serious analysis. It is not a charity play or a symbolic gesture toward Pan-African solidarity. It is a hard industrial asset, generating real revenue in hard currency, operating at the center of a continental energy transformation that will define the next quarter century of African economic development.

The strategic case begins with the asset itself.

The Dangote Refinery, located in the Ibeju-Lekki Free Trade Zone on the outskirts of Lagos, is the world’s largest single-train crude oil processing facility, with a current capacity of 650,000 barrels per day. It reached full operational capacity in early 2024, has already turned Nigeria into a net fuel exporter, and has disrupted global trade routes that previously ran refined petroleum products from European refineries back into the African market. The refinery currently supplies over 90% of Nigeria’s domestic petrol demand and has exported refined fuel to five African countries. The Dangote Group’s revenues have grown from $3.3 billion to $18 billion over the past five years, and the refinery’s expansion roadmap which envisions more than doubling capacity to 1.4 million barrels per day is the central purpose of the IPO capital raise.

One structural feature of the transaction is particularly noteworthy for institutional investors operating in the United States: dividends will be paid in US dollars, even though shares are purchased in naira. This is not a minor administrative detail. It addresses the core foreign-exchange risk concern that typically limits American institutional appetite for African equity markets. Dollar-denominated dividends from an asset generating dollar-denominated revenues — the refinery sells its output at global commodity prices — transforms the currency risk profile of the investment from speculative to manageable. For HBCU endowments that are overwhelmingly concentrated in US equities and fixed income, this creates a genuine entry point into the African investment universe without the full currency risk exposure that has historically made direct African market participation unattractive.

Now consider where HBCU endowments currently stand in the landscape of American higher education finance.

According to the most recent NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, HBCU institutions accounted for approximately $2.4 billion of the $944 billion in total endowment assets reported by participating institutions. The average HBCU endowment was $236.7 million, compared to $1.4 billion for all NCSE respondents. Only two HBCUs — Howard University, which crossed the $1 billion threshold, and Spelman College hold endowments above $500 million. The PWI-to-HBCU endowment gap among the top 10 institutions in each category stands at roughly 129 to 1. HBCU endowment gift flows fell to $67.7 million in FY25 from $91.9 million in FY24. On nearly every metric, the structural undercapitalization of HBCU institutional wealth is not merely significant; it is a threat to the long-term viability of institutions that serve as the backbone of African American professional formation.

The investment allocation patterns compounding this problem are equally stark. HBCU endowments allocate just 14% of their portfolios to alternative asset classes, compared to 41% for their non-HBCU peers — a 27-percentage-point gap that systematically excludes them from the asset classes driving the highest long-term returns. The reasons are structural and understandable: smaller endowments have fewer investment staff, face higher minimum investment thresholds at most alternative asset managers, and operate with more conservative board mandates. But the consequence is that HBCU endowments are systematically excluded from the alternative and international asset classes that generate the outsized returns sustaining the endowments of Harvard, Yale, and the University of Texas system. The compounding effect of this exclusion over decades is not a gap — it is a chasm.

The Dangote IPO, precisely because of its scale, its multi-exchange structure, and its dollar dividend commitment, represents an unusual opportunity to begin addressing one dimension of this allocation problem.

For institutions with sufficient endowment size to participate as institutional investors in the international tranche of the offering — Howard, Spelman, Hampton, and a small handful of others — the case for direct participation is straightforward. A position in the world’s largest single-train refinery, at an entry valuation of $40 to $50 billion, in an asset whose expansion is already funded and whose revenues are denominated in the currency in which your dividends will be paid, provides genuine portfolio diversification, inflation protection through commodity-linked revenues, and exposure to the fastest-urbanizing, fastest-growing consumer energy market on earth. Africa’s urban population is projected to double by 2050. Every major city added to the African urban grid requires energy infrastructure. The Dangote Refinery is positioned at the center of that demand trajectory.

For institutions whose endowment size makes direct participation in the IPO difficult which is the reality for most of the HBCU sector the answer is not to sit out. It is to aggregate. The 1890 Foundation, which serves as the coordinating hub for the nation’s 19 historically Black land-grant universities and has already demonstrated its capacity to administer large-scale federal partnerships, is the most credible existing infrastructure for a consortium investment vehicle among its member institutions. A formally structured investment fund operating through the 1890 network governed by participating endowment officers, managed by professional advisers with international markets experience, and capitalized through pooled contributions from member institutions would provide access to investment minimums and due diligence resources that no individual 1890 institution could assemble independently. The SWAC, MEAC, SIAC, CIAA, and HBCU Athletic Conference represent analogous organizing structures across the sector where the same consortium investment logic applies where each already functions as a governance body with member institutions, shared administrative infrastructure, and collective standing that could anchor a pooled investment vehicle.

HBCU alumni associations belong in this conversation, but not as secondary vehicles for the institution’s benefit. They belong as independent institutional investors making strategic decisions on their own financial merits. An alumni association that builds an investment fund with its own governance, its own professional management, and its own return targets is building institutional wealth for its membership, not running a philanthropic pipeline to its parent institution. The distinction matters. An alumni association investment fund capitalized by members seeking competitive financial returns will attract a different level of participation, a different quality of governance, and ultimately a different scale of capital than one framed as an alumni giving mechanism wearing investment clothes. Where coordination between a university endowment and its alumni association investment fund makes strategic sense such as co-investment in a shared opportunity, shared due diligence costs, complementary positions in the same offering that coordination should happen by design, not by default. But each institution must be making an independent decision of financial merit.

The argument for this model is not merely aspirational. It has historical precedent in other diaspora investment networks. The Indian American diaspora has consistently channeled capital into Indian infrastructure and technology sectors through organized networks of high-net-worth investors coordinated through professional associations and regional affinity groups. Cuban American capital networks have played a documented role in channeling investment back into businesses serving the diaspora in South Florida. Jewish American institutional networks have sustained diaspora bond programs through organized professional and philanthropic structures for decades. The mechanisms are known. The question is whether African American institutional leadership will build the organizational infrastructure to replicate them.

But the case for HBCU institutional participation in the Dangote IPO extends beyond portfolio diversification or even diaspora solidarity. It is about the connective tissue between two halves of the same people that has never been fully built. African American institutions sit on intellectual capital in agriculture, medicine, engineering, law, public policy, and the sciences that is directly relevant to the development challenges facing African Core nations. African institutions sit on natural capital, emerging market infrastructure, and a demographic growth trajectory that represents the most significant economic expansion of the twenty-first century. The relationship between the two has been episodic and philanthropic where it should be structural and transactional. An HBCU endowment that holds equity in the Dangote Refinery is not making a charitable gesture toward the continent — it is establishing a financial relationship that creates the institutional logic for research partnerships, faculty exchanges, student pipelines, and joint ventures that philanthropy alone never compels. Capital is the language institutions speak to each other when they intend to be taken seriously. Beyond the bilateral opportunity, there is a harder truth: Africa’s resources have been extracted, its assets undervalued, and its markets structured to serve outside interests since the colonial era. That dynamic does not end on its own. It ends when African institutions and their diaspora counterparts accumulate enough ownership stake in African Core assets that the continent’s wealth begins compounding inward rather than flowing out. Every dollar of HBCU and African American institutional capital deployed into African equity markets is a dollar that does not go to the outside investors who have historically treated the African Core as a source of raw return without reciprocal obligation. Ownership is the only permanent answer to extraction.

The Dangote IPO is not only an investment proposition. It is a test of whether Black institutional America can organize itself to participate in the capital formation of the African Core, the region whose industrialization will define the global economy’s next chapter or whether, once again, the value created in this geography will accrue primarily to investors who had the institutional organization to show up.

Nigeria’s regulatory environment carries the political and macroeconomic variance typical of any large, resource-rich emerging economy no more inherently unstable than the frontier and emerging markets of Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, or Latin America that well-capitalized endowments have allocated to for decades without treating the risk as exceptional. That Nigerian markets have historically been characterized as uniquely risky reflects less about Nigeria’s actual risk profile than about the systematic undervaluation of African Core economies by external rating frameworks designed to serve the capital interests of institutions that benefit from keeping African assets mispriced. The multi-exchange listing structure presents a genuine operational challenge: coordinating clearing, settlement, and trading standards across multiple African exchanges simultaneously has no established precedent at this scale, and execution risk is real. Currency risk, while substantially mitigated by the dollar dividend structure, is not eliminated. And the refinery carries $3.65 billion in outstanding debt, with plans to repay through operations and asset sales — a material factor in any serious valuation analysis.

These risks are real. They do not, however, distinguish this offering from the risk profile of the emerging market private equity and infrastructure funds that well-capitalized non-HBCU endowments have been allocating to for the past two decades. The difference is not that those endowments found risk-free investments in emerging markets. The difference is that they built the institutional capacity to analyze and manage those risks, and they positioned themselves to capture the returns that came with accepting them.

HBCU endowments that remain concentrated in domestic equities and fixed income because they lack the investment staff to evaluate an African infrastructure IPO are not being prudent. They are being institutionally underpowered in a way that will compound against their beneficiaries for generations.

The path forward requires several concrete steps. First, HBCU endowment boards and foundation leadership should commission formal analysis of the Dangote prospectus as it becomes available and engage the offering’s appointed advisers — Stanbic IBTC Capital, Vetiva Advisory Services, and FirstCap — to understand the terms available to international institutional participants. Second, the 1890 Foundation, UNCF, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, the HBCU Faculty Development Network, and the leadership of the SWAC, MEAC, SIAC, CIAA, and HBCU Athletic Conference should open formal conversations now about the governance structure of consortium investment vehicles within their respective networks, before this offering closes and before the next one arrives. Each of these organizations already operates across multiple institutions with shared administrative infrastructure; the investment coordination function is an extension of capacity they already possess, not a capability they would need to build from scratch. Third, HBCU alumni association leadership (national organizations, alumni chapters, and the professional networks that shadow every major HBCU) should be building investment fund infrastructure as a parallel track, governed independently and capitalized on financial merit, with coordination with institutional endowments happening where it creates genuine value for both parties.

The architecture of African wealth is being redrawn. The Dangote IPO is not a metaphor for that process. It is the process, in concrete form, open for institutional participation by any investor with the organizational capacity to engage it.

The young man and the young woman are standing before the elders. The boats can be built. The only question is whether this village will finally decide that the river belongs to them too.


This article is for informational and analytical purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Prospective investors should conduct independent due diligence and consult qualified financial advisers before making investment decisions.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ClaudeAI.

Do The Math: HBCUs Owning Their Own Tournaments Can Pay Better Than Hoping To Be Cinderellas Against PWIs In Theirs

“Take the fast road and get robbed then. Do you want to be famous or do you want to be rich? Because there is a likeliness that you might not be able to be both in this game. At a certain point you have to decide, do you want to be seen and known and look like you got bread and have everybody assume you got bread? Or do you really want to have bread and have people just assume you broke and not really getting it?” – Bun B

Jackie Robinson’s foray into Major League Baseball. Sam “Bam” Cunningham’s foray into PWI football. Texas Western’s championship in 1966 in PWI basketball. These are pivotal moments when an individual’s action would start the demolition of the institutions of African American institutional athletic power along with collapse of the infrastructure and ecosystems that made them such valuable assets to the African American community. In both instances, it would precipitate a talent and economic drain of African American institutions. 

The Negro Leagues would ultimately fold, ownership, executives, managers, hundreds if not thousands of jobs that were the byproduct of the Negro League wiped away to the sands of time. In 1947, there were zero African American owners in Major League Baseball. In 2023, there are zero African American owners in Major League Baseball. “Virtually all of the initial (Negro League) ownership was Black”, says Garrick Kebede, a Houston-based financial adviser and Negro League Baseball historian. In fact, across all major professional sports leagues (121 teams), there is only one African American principal owner – Michael Jordan, owner of the Charlotte Hornets and rumors are he is on the verge of selling the team almost eight decades after Branch Rickey poached Jackie Robinson. On the labor side, Major League Baseball reached its African American apex of players in 1981 with 18.7 percent of the players being African American. In 2023, that number has seen a precipitous decline down to 6.7 percent – a number not seen since 1957, a decade after Jackie Robinson entered the majors. Jackie Robinson’s move to the MLB did not just set the stage for the demise of the Negro Leagues, it would set the seed for HBCUs athletic demise just a few decades later.

A little over two decades later in 1966, Texas Western University (now, University of Texas El-Paso) would win the NCAA basketball championship with the first all-black starting lineup at a PWI and a few years later in 1970, Sam “Bam” Cunningham would take USC’s offense and run all over the all-white University of Alabama. Jerry Claiborne, an assistant to Head Coach Bear Bryant at the University of Alabama, famously said, “Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King Jr. did in 20 years.” But he did not integrate anything. Both instances simply convinced PWIs that Black athletes were the future of their programs and taking that talent from HBCUs could financially benefit them immensely among their STILL predominantly white fan bases and boosters. The fans and boosters just want to win. And while a decrease in European American players happened, the coaches, boosters, trustees, school bodies, and ownership in all the places that matter would still be what it has always been. Before enslaved Africans were brought to America, indentured servants who were the poor of Europe would be the labor pool of early America. This was to be no different of a transition. And ownership is ultimately the rub of where all of this lies for African America and HBCUs. 

The money behind the playoffs for football, the NCAA and NIT tournament for basketball, and the World Series for baseball and softball is dare we say – complicated. This in part is due to the way payouts are structured for each playoff/tournament and how schools and conferences choose to deal with the funds they receive for participating. For instance, in the NCAA tournament, “The NCAA urges the conference to distribute the earnings equally to the schools, but it is not a requirement. Typically, the bigger conferences will divide the money and send it to its member schools. The smaller ones, however, need the money to cover their own expenses, and then will send what’s left to its member schools.”, according to AS’s Jennifer Bubel. On the other hand, the NCAA’s ownership of the NIT operates a bit differently. “The NCAA has a complex way of rewarding teams for participating in March Madness. For the NIT, it’s much simpler. In addition to having travel, hotel and other expenses comped, each school in the NIT is given $4,000 for every game it plays. It’s a total payout pool of $128,000 this year.” says Sportico’s Eben Nvoy-Williams. Yet, Nvoy-Williams also points out that the NIT’s profitability to the NCAA while being lesser known is extremely profitable, “Though it’s nowhere near the commercial entity of March Madness, the National Invitation Tournament, or NIT, is a very profitable business for the NCAA. In 2019, the last year the event was held, it turned a $2.1 million profit on $3.3 million in expenses, according to financial documents. In 2018, the numbers were similar.” For football, “Each conference receives $6 million from the College Football Playoff for each team selected for a semifinal game and $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the College Football Playoff.” reports Business of College Sports. Last but not least there is baseball, “In 2011, the NCAA included the College World Series as part of a $500 million television deal with ESPN for 24 sports championships through 2023-2024.” according to Huddle Up’s Joe Pompliano. Have we lost everyone yet? To sum it up, the finances of college athletics are extremely complicated. Adding to that complication is the fact that these playoffs and tournaments are all owned by the NCAA. But that ownership is now under threat as the Power 5 members realizing their own outsized power within the NCAA are vying to form their own entity. CBS Sports reports, “Majority of Power Five schools favor breaking away” and they primarily are looking to do so because they recognize they are a disproportionate contributor to NCAA events and more ownership would allow to share less and keep more within their conferences. Whether or not they determine that ownership is within the NCAA or a separate athletic association of their own is to be determined. Given their outsize influence in the NCAA though it may end up being a debate over how you pronounce tomato or potato. 

Many HBCU athletic supporters believe it is better that HBCUs fight for the respect and equality of their PWI counterparts in the NCAA as opposed to taking ownership of the HBCU Power Five (SWAC, MEAC, SIAC, CIAA, and GCAC) and forming the HBCU Athletic Association. This despite not having the alumni bases, boosters, or economic weight to be anything more than what we are in the NCAA’s ecosystem. In some respects, it harkens to the playing field of hip-hop where many artists finally started realizing that it was far better financially to be an independent artist than sign to a major label where an advance (also known as a loan) would keep the artist indebted to the label forever. A continued belief is that all we need to do is get the best athletes to come back to HBCUs and that resolves everything. Something no one seems to actually have an answer on how to accomplish or recognition in just how much that would cost – again, while not having the financial resources to accomplish it. Many think abandoning HBCU conferences and moving into PWI conferences is the answer despite multiple schools having tried and failing. HBCUs weakening HBCU conferences for PWI conferences is no different than African American athletes abandoning HBCUs for PWIs. It does not help us scale institutional power or circulate institutional capital. 

As it stands right now, the NCAA tournament is worth approximately $340,000 per win and with only the SWAC and MEAC participating (FBS schools only), even with a miraculous run it would workout to only $220,250 per school between the two conferences should they BOTH make it all the way to the Final Four. The secret to a conference actually making a lot of money in the NCAA tournament is having multiple teams from the conference get into the tournament. The SWAC/MEAC always only get one each and that is the automatic bid from winning their conference tournament. Money that a team earns in the tournament is usually (not required) split evenly among all of the members of the conference. Not always the case with smaller schools like HBCUs whose individual programs usually need every single penny. Given that every SWAC/MEAC athletic programs runs in the red and their 2019-2020 combined losses were to the tune of $161M it is hard to say whether the basketball programs that make it will share or can even afford to share.

The harsh reality of the probability for a deep run for HBCU men’s basketball is reflected in the SWAC/MEAC’s win-loss record in the tournament. Without comment, it is 4-55 all-time and we think that speaks for itself. It means that the SWAC/MEAC earned usually earn no more than the one unit times two teams for making it and this year that works out to a total of approximately $680,000 combined and $34,000 per school in the conferences if it is evenly divided. Can HBCUs create their own HBCU basketball tournament that would earn each school more than $34,000 per year? That is essentially the question that must be answered in considering creating our own tournament versus continuing to play in the NCAA tournament. If you included all 57 members of the HBCU Five, then that would need to be a tournament that produced a profit of $1.94M. Based on the NIT’s numbers, that would mean expenses of $3.1M or $55,000 per school approximately and revenues of approximately $5M or $87,700 per school. Again, this is a profit of almost $2M for the HBCU Five. The difference in this case is that of course the conferences would have an asset they could actually put on their financial statements that would be held in trust among their member institutions. Quite an enticing carrot in trying to recruit independent HBCUs to join the conference like Tennessee State University or PBIs like Chicago State University. The HBCU Five should be able to leverage a television contract for at least the cost of the tournament with everything else being profit thereafter. This could be repeated with football, baseball, and other sports.

Continued delusion around HBCU athletics competing with PWI athletic programs that have budgets ten times their size, a roster of boosters who write million dollar checks annually, corporate relationships with executives who also are PWI alumni and owned by PWI shareholders is a one-way train ticket to Diasasterville with the brake lines cut. You can not do what your competitor is doing when your resources socially, economically, and politically are as obtuse as HBCU reality. There are no HBCU boosters writing million dollar checks annually, there are no companies with HBCU executives and owned by HBCU shareholders who can provide multimillion corporate sponsorships, and there are reasons we all know and only say in private about why many African American high school athletes and their families overwhelmingly choose PWIs. We have to do different, think different, be creative, and solve the Rubik’s Cube that is not only the athletic conundrum we are facing but the lack of ownership crisis that continues to have a chokehold on African American institutionalism since 1947.

The Case For Mergers: Marrying The Big Four HBCU Conferences Into Two

“The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime.” – Babe Ruth

0-1

Many years ago, HBCU Money called for the creation of HBCU super conferences. It is time we revisit that conversation. This time we hope to give more scenarios and a clearer picture of what we now believe is the right course of strategic action. We will simply focus on the schools currently within the conferences as opposed to previously making an argument for expanding beyond the current five HBCU conferences, the Gulf Coast Athletic Conference is the only HBCU athletic conference in the NAIA. This conversation will focus again solely on the SWAC, MEAC, CIAA, and SIAC, all are whom a part of the NCAA. Whether that should continue to be the case will be a conversation for another time – one we hope HBCU athletic alumni and administrations are less afraid to have, but that is likely not the case as far too many still desire to chase the dreams of competing against their PWI counterparts for “their” championship.

Between the four HBCU conferences in the NCAA, there are 46 HBCUs and 2 PWIs that make up the four conferences. The CIAA and SIAC both having non-HBCU members who have joined their ranks. More pointedly, the SWAC/MEAC have 21 member schools in their conference, while the CIAA/SIAC have 27 member schools. Most know that the SWAC/MEAC and CIAA/SIAC play in the same divisions with the former being FCS and latter being Division II programs. Geographically though, the SWAC/SIAC and MEAC/CIAA share more accommodating footprints.

Why are both of these things something too heavily consider? First, the divisions that the schools play in is vital to understanding the cost difference associated with different divisions. FCS schools spend more, are expected to spend more, and do spend more than Division II and Division III schools. The fact that HBCUs largely lack the booster power to maintain their FCS infrastructure, largely leaning on the backs of their students to drive revenues through student fees has always been a matter of concern and why some advocates have called for them to drop down to Division II where sports are significantly more affordable. However, in fairness to the SWAC/MEAC, the numbers for the CIAA/SIAC in their own right as it relates to revenues, expenses, and student fee subsidies has not been compiled and scrutinized as it has with the FCS HBCUs. On a percentage basis things could look eerily the same. The NCAA reported in 2011-2012 that Division II member schools with football incurred a net loss of $4.5 million per year, while schools without football incurred a net loss of $3.6 million. While $900,000 does not seem like a huge difference, in the world of HBCUs where every dollar is dire it is worth noting in the conversation. This means if the CIAA/SIAC held the median, then the two conferences combined for an annual loss of $112.5 million as it pertains to the HBCUs in the two conferences. The SWAC/MEAC in 2017-2018 were losing a combined $150 million annually (without student subsidies). Also, a key factor to take note of is the cost between FCS and Division II conferences by the NCAA, “Division II institutions contemplating a move to the Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) will likely be spending significantly more money as the median net expense was over $10 million in Division I FCS versus $4.5 million for Division II programs with football.” A factor of 2.2 between the two divisions.

Second in the conversation is the geography. A major factor in expenses for institutions. Travel costs alone can tear into a school’s athletic budget and the greater the distance the more the cost, obviously. Instead of buses, now it is planes. Instead of a one night in the hotel, now you need two. The cost can escalate quickly, which is why many colleges try to maintain their non-conference schedules close to home. This by its very nature means that a natural merger between the SIAC/SWAC and the CIAA/MEAC would make the most geographic sense. It would provide ample opponents in proximity and in-state greatly reducing costs across athletic departments. The linchpin is of course what division would the member schools play in. Do the Division II schools take on more cost to go up a level and hope they can increased revenues can support this? Winston-Salem State University tried it and quickly realized, not likely. What exactly FCS HBCUs are holding onto of not dropping down to Division II seems to be anyone’s guess at this point other than the belief that eventually they will rise to the FBS, join a Power 5 conference, make millions upon millions, and compete for a national championship against Alabama. A perfectly sensible (delusional) strategy somewhere. The path of least resistance says though that the divisions trump geography.

Lastly, the mergers would give something that small schools like HBCUs need – scale and cooperative ventures. Power 5 conferences are profitable because of three simple factors and the athletes on the field (albeit a nice piece) have little to nothing to do with it: 1) being able to put 100,000 people in the stands, 2) television contracts because of the alumni base size, and 3) boosters who shell out annually more money than most HBCU athletic budgets have. For HBCU conferences, the scale that doubling in size would bring along with the cost savings would be immeasurable regardless of the pairing structure from four to two. This could be magnified even greater if the five HBCU conferences would agree to form the HBCU Athletic Association, but for now, baby steps.

There is no denying that what HBCU athletics need most – like the schools themselves – is ways to drive revenue that do not rely on the backs of their students. HBCUs themselves rely heavily on tuition revenue to keep the doors open and HBCU athletics rely heavily on the students fees that most students and parents do not even know are in the small print being used to fund said athletic programs.

 

HBCU athletics is still an oversized concern for HBCU alumni who should be focused more on things like research, endowments, graduation rates, student loan debts, and the like. The notion that sports will bring in financial sustainability to HBCUs is wishful thinking on the best days. However, how a school manages its athletics and athletic budgets can make or break institutions if done so poorly. If we are insistent on sports, then it should be done so in a way that allows for the institutions to run those departments in a fiscally responsible way. and is far less reliant on students having to assume student fees that are being paid for with student loans. Scale in business is a prime way to cut expenses, increase revenues, and ultimately (hopefully) find a potential path to profitability or at the very least not have to rely on student fees being 75 percent of athletic revenues. To achieve scale, institutions or organizations often either merge or acquire and HBCU conferences should undoubtedly consider the same. 

 

HBCU Money’s 2021 Top 10 HBCU Endowments

If there was a short analysis of the 2021 HBCU endowment list it would be this – still not enough. Despite record breaking donations toward HBCUs from Mackenzie Scott and others in 2020-2021, the PWI-HBCU endowment gap among the Top 10 PWIs and HBCUs continues to balloon, a gap that stands at a staggering $121 to $1. This despite a 35 percent increase by the Top 10 HBCU endowments from last year. Simply put, winning the philanthropic “lottery” is not enough and it never will be when it comes to closing the endowment gap. The rabbit never beats the tortoise to put it another way. HBCUs must find a way to find consistent capital infusions over time as opposed to lighting quick one-offs.

The HBCU donor pool is simply too small and too poor (relatively speaking) to close the endowment gap. Without increasing the percentage of African Americans college students who go to HBCUs from 10 percent to 25-30 percent, it does not bode well for HBCUs to be able to close the endowment gap through traditional means. HBCUs and their alumni are going to have to be more creative and must be so expeditiously. While this is the most HBCU endowments we have ever reported with $100 million or greater, increasing from five in 2020 to seven in 2021, PWIs saw an 25 percent increase in the number of endowments over $2 billion going from 55 to 69 and an equally 25 percent rise in the number of endowments over $1 billion going from 114 to 142. This while HBCUs are still waiting for their first billion dollar endowment.

To that point, the race between Howard and Spelman is tightening. Last year’s $334 million lead that Howard held over Spelman has shrunk to $265 million. At one point it seemed a foregone conclusion that Howard would reach the milestone first (The Race To The First Billion Dollar HBCU Endowment: Can Anyone Catch Howard?), that is no longer the case. Howard’s public relations over the past year have not been favorable and while many people say all press is good press – not when you are an African American institution. With Hampton and North Carolina A&T’s departure from the MEAC, no HBCU conference (CIAA, GCAC, MEAC, SIAC, SWAC) is dominating the Top 10 and the list is split 50/50 between private and public HBCUs as well. Arguably this is the most diverse Top 10 HBCU endowment list since we first began publishing, but one thing remains feverishly consistent and that is there is a lot of work to be done to ensure HBCU endowments and therefore the institutions of HBCUs are sustainable and thriving.

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Top 10 HBCU Endowment Total – $2.7 billion
  • Top 10 PWI Endowment Total – $328.7 billion
  • Number of PWIs Above $2 billion – 69
  • Number of PWIs Above $1 billion – 142
  • HBCU Median – $97.8 million (33.7%)
  • NACUBO Median – $200.4 million (25.8%)
  • HBCU Average – $203.8 million (53.6%)
  • NACUBO Average – $1.2 billion (35.2%)

All values are in millions ($000)*

1. Howard University – $795,203 (11.6%)

2. Spelman College – $530,399 (40.3%)

3.  Hampton University – $379,992 (35.4%)

4.  Morehouse College – $278,073 (77.0%)

5.  Meharry Medical College – $186,943 (19.3%)

6. North Carolina A&T State University  – $157,336 (113.2%)

7. Florida A&M University – $118,635 (24.4%)

8. Morgan State University$97,783 (162.9%)

9. Tennessee State University – $91,120 (33.2%)

10. The University of the Virgin Islands – $82,863 (23.9%)

OTHERS REPORTING:

*The change in market value does NOT represent the rate of return for the institution’s investments. Rather, the change in the market value of an endowment from FY20 to FY21 reflects the net impact of:
1) withdrawals to fund institutional operations and capital expenses;
2) the payment of endowment management and investment fees;
3) additions from donor gifts and other contributions; and
4) investment gains or losses.

SOURCE: NACUBO

Take a look at how an endowment works. Not only scholarships to reduce the student debt burden but research, recruiting talented faculty & students, faculty salaries, and a host of other things can be paid for through a strong endowment. It ultimately is the lifeblood of a college or university to ensure its success generation after generation.

Student Debt Profile By Conference (School By School) – The CIAA

CIAA

Bowie State University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – $24 291

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – 76%

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – 9%

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 52%

Elizabeth City State University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – $3 846

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – 44%

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – 49%

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 66%

Fayetteville State University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 72%

Johnson C. Smith University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – $46 673

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – 100%

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – 5%

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 58%

Lincoln (PA) University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 64%

Livingstone College

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 84%

Saint Augustine’s University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – $12 652

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – 93%

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – 8%

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 74%

Shaw University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 75%

Virginia State University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – $28 250

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – 90%

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – 24%

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 71%

Virginia Union University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 67%

Winston-Salem State University

Average debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

Proportion of graduates with debt, 2011 – N/A

Nonfederal debt, % of total debt of graduates, 2011 – N/A

2010-11 Pell Grant recipients – 53%

Source: The Project on Student Debt